Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While not a perfect circle is does circle the city with spokes off to the suburbs. DC is a very different work environment then MSP area, MOST of the jobs in DC are in DC or the immediate "suburbs" proper-Arlington, Crystal City/Pentagon, etc.. That is not the case here, Minneapolis has a very, very small percent of the jobs in the metro area which is why a Minneapolis focused transit station makes very little sense. 160,000 people work in downtown Minneapolis,
If you look at that map, it looks very much like what I suggested, a circle around 494/694 with spokes going off on 94 (north and east) and spokes from 35 (south and north) and Cedar Ave.
The Red Line in DC would be similar to the North 95 and North 35 route, the blue line would be similar to the East 94 and South 35 Route (or even 169 route), etc.
As for density, 380,000 people live in Minneapolis and 3 million live in the suburbs . No, you aren't living on top of your neighbors like you do in Minneapolis but people would create an artificial density by driving to transit stations, just like they do now with the bus transit stations.
Yes, people want to get out of Minneapolis, which is why the spokes through Minneapolis make sense. There is already one light rail line running through Minneapolis, people can take a bus to that line, just like they do now, to a hub to get anywhere in the metro. Why is that an issue? I am still trying to figure out how 380,000 people are more then 3 million .
As someone who lived on the Red Line in DC (and my husband worked off of another stop along the Red Line), I can say I have no idea where you are getting your information! It loops right through the center of the city and then out again. It might be somewhat equivalent to the Southwest Corridor route IF it had gone through Uptown and then through downtown, and then out again the other side through NE Minneapolis and up to St. Anthony or something. It certainly doesn't ring the city.
You may also want to take a look at the definition for "density." Not to mention your population statistics for the Twin Cities! It's difficult to debate with someone who just makes things up, though.
While you're at, take a look at current public transportation routes with the most and the least ridership. While I think a good rail route will attract some new riders, I'm not a big fan of throwing away millions and millions of dollars on routes that won't be utilized. Granted, rail might boost these numbers, but right now suburban crosstown routes account for a VERY small percentage of local public transportation rides. How does that justify building rail routes? Much as I like public transportation and prefer LRT to buses, I don't think it makes any fiscal sense to build projects that few will ride. Better to concentrate our funds and efforts on meeting existing needs, and then work from there. And right now, building rail lines to ring the suburbs simply doesn't make sense. Who is going to take those lines? What would inspire current suburb-to-suburb commuters to make the switch from their cars?
As I said in my previous post, I realize that the ring-and-spokes idea is a pipe dream, largely because the density of destinations is likely too low. As GG said, people would probably be willing to drive just a little ways to get to a station, so I don't know that the density of homes is a complete dealbreaker. I think the bigger problem is at the other end of the journey. People won't want to walk forever, or transfer to another bus when they get off the train...at that point it becomes easier just to drive. Its also not reasonable to have the train stop at every isolated shopping mall and every office building with more 2 stories, as that would be so slow that, again, it would be easier just to drive.
So the trick would be to identify locations with enough destinations within walking distance to make people want to ride the train to get there. Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove might be a good example of one destination. I'm not familiar enough with most of the suburbs to point out many more...maybe down by the Best Buy headquarters at 35W and 494 would be another good destination?
I completely agree that if you were to just haul off and build two giant rings of train tracks, it would be a massively expensive disaster as far as ridership right now. But GG is right: there are a lot of people out in the suburbs and that's not going to change. Wouldn't it be cool if the suburbs started working together to encourage growth in a way that would be ameniable to something like this?
I agree that the problem is at the END of the ride, which is part of the reason it makes sense (at this point) to concentrate on lines that spoke out from downtown. With time perhaps the areas around suburban origin points will become dense in terms of both jobs and housing, at which point then maybe we could start talking about connecting them by rail. For now, though, it makes more sense to connect them via the city (and people can transfer lines in the center of the city; not practical if one is trying to go from Eden Prairie to Richfield as it would be way out of the way, but could be an option if going from Eden Prairie to Roseville, for example), and use the transit stations as larger hubs to develop better suburban bus routes. MOA, for example, has become a transit hub and does have some good, fairly heavily utilized, suburban bus routes; the 515, for example, offers frequent service and gets good ridership. Not enough yet to justify rail expansion, but a good example of how different transit options can work together.
Since DC keeps coming up, there were plenty of times when I took Metro out to a suburban station and then transferred to a bus to bring me the rest of the way. It worked well. I do think there needs to be better suburb-to-suburb connections in the Twin Cities, but think that bus is the way to go for now, coupled with LRT stations that radiate out from the center city and extend to suburban job centers. And again, down the road if population and ridership justifies it, those bus routes could later be turned into rail if the demand was there.
ETA: and just to clarify, I very much support LRT stations in the suburbs, although I think new lines should have a spoke/hub centered downtown. And ironically one area where GG and I MAY agree is that I think we both support the position that light rail lines should not only be thought of as commuter lines from suburbs into downtown. I think that's too limiting -- and part of the reason I'm so frustrated that the Southwest Corridor is going to skip major destinations like Uptown; the plan was too focused on getting people to/from Eden Prairie to downtown Minneapolis for work, but didn't factor in all the people who may have taken it for smaller legs along the way, or who would possibly use it for commutes other than simply from suburban home to downtown job. A good metro-wide system will make it easy and more efficient for people to move around all parts of our metro area, including suburb-to-suburb. (but I do think she's being very short-sighted in her insistence on seeing Minneapolis as somehow peripheral in all of this. That IS where our population density is highest, it's home to both downtown and to the U and to other major job sites, and it's centrally located.)
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 12-20-2011 at 09:14 AM..
I agree that the problem is at the END of the ride, which is part of the reason it makes sense (at this point) to concentrate on lines that spoke out from downtown. With time perhaps the areas around suburban origin points will become dense in terms of both jobs and housing, at which point then maybe we could start talking about connecting them by rail. For now, though, it makes more sense to connect them via the city (and people can transfer lines in the center of the city; not practical if one is trying to go from Eden Prairie to Richfield as it would be way out of the way, but could be an option if going from Eden Prairie to Roseville, for example), and use the transit stations as larger hubs to develop better suburban bus routes. MOA, for example, has become a transit hub and does have some good, fairly heavily utilized, suburban bus routes; the 515, for example, offers frequent service and gets good ridership. Not enough yet to justify rail expansion, but a good example of how different transit options can work together.
Since DC keeps coming up, there were plenty of times when I took Metro out to a suburban station and then transferred to a bus to bring me the rest of the way. It worked well. I do think there needs to be better suburb-to-suburb connections in the Twin Cities, but think that bus is the way to go for now, coupled with LRT stations that radiate out from the center city and extend to suburban job centers. And again, down the road if population and ridership justifies it, those bus routes could later be turned into rail if the demand was there.
ETA: and just to clarify, I very much support LRT stations in the suburbs, although I think new lines should have a spoke/hub centered downtown. And ironically one area where GG and I MAY agree is that I think we both support the position that light rail lines should not only be thought of as commuter lines from suburbs into downtown. I think that's too limiting -- and part of the reason I'm so frustrated that the Southwest Corridor is going to skip major destinations like Uptown; the plan was too focused on getting people to/from Eden Prairie to downtown Minneapolis for work, but didn't factor in all the people who may have taken it for smaller legs along the way, or who would possibly use it for commutes other than simply from suburban home to downtown job. A good metro-wide system will make it easy and more efficient for people to move around all parts of our metro area, including suburb-to-suburb. (but I do think she's being very short-sighted in her insistence on seeing Minneapolis as somehow peripheral in all of this. That IS where our population density is highest, it's home to both downtown and to the U and to other major job sites, and it's centrally located.)
So what if the density is the highest in Minneapolis, the point is MOST people don't live and work there. Having all lines run to Minneapolis is flawed because of that. Having a line that runs along where most of the traffic in the cities happens, around 494/696 and the spokes off that that makes MUCH more sense. It would give people the option for suburb to suburb transportation which is where MOST of the commuting happens in the Twin Cities. The current line isn't utilized as much because it is too limited in where it goes. It's great if you live near the MOA and commute to downtown Minneapolis but after that it's useless. You even said that a good transit system makes it easy to move around ALL areas of the metro, not just Minneapolis. I would love to be able to take the light rail all over the metro but with current plans that will never happen. I think it is short sighted to thing that everything hubs around Minneapolis. The Twin Cities is unique in that most people do NOT work in the "city" which is why it doesn't matter how "dense" Minneapolis is because that is a very, very small percentage of the population in the metro, only about 10%. Why are we spending billions to serve 10% of the population when we could spend the same for the other 90%??
I would never ride a line where I had to go into Minneapolis to catch another line to take me back to Burnsville for one example. I think you would find that no one else would either but if they could take a route that circles the suburban areas, saving oh, an hour or two on a commute every day by NOT going into Minneapolis, people would happily ride such a system. Also, having spokes off of the highways I said WOULD take lines through Minneapolis and St Paul unless 94 and 35 moved and I didn't know that. The layout of DC is different then Minneapolis and St. Paul so it wouldn't be exactly the same but the lines would look very similar-routing AROUND downtown like DC has as well as THROUGH the downtowns.
But GG, density is important when trying to plan where to put stops. I agree with you completely, that it would be great to have quick suburb-to-suburb trains, but (and I mean this as a genuine, not rhetorical question), where are the areas that you see enough demand within walking distance to put a station?
The two downtowns and the U of MN are obvious locations for major stations because there are thousands and thousands of jobs and entertainment options within walking distance of one another. I think our suburb-ring trains would have to be built off of connecting similar locations out in the suburbs, which are likely too sparse right now, but would be great to grow towards that. We need a series of sub-downtowns sprinkled around the metro!
I've always been curious about the buses -> grow ridership -> train/LRT/etc model and how well that works. To me, there is just something psychologically different about the two. I occasionally take a bus into work, and even though the total time is about the same, I'm always happy when I can get back on my usual train. Similarly, if I'm visiting an unfamiliar city I don't really even consider using buses, but I'll jump on a lightrail, train, or subway in a heartbeat. Somehow it feels less like I'm going to get off in the wrong place and not know a way back. But I digress....
I went to Philadelphia in 2007. I loved that city. Center City (Downtown) was very dense, mixed with modern and colonial architecture. However, it was MUCH bigger than Minneapolis. SEPTA (South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority) was a subway, train system and worked wonderfully. It was great being able to hop on that thing, take it 10 blocks and get off. Super-Easy.
But GG, density is important when trying to plan where to put stops. I agree with you completely, that it would be great to have quick suburb-to-suburb trains, but (and I mean this as a genuine, not rhetorical question), where are the areas that you see enough demand within walking distance to put a station?
The two downtowns and the U of MN are obvious locations for major stations because there are thousands and thousands of jobs and entertainment options within walking distance of one another. I think our suburb-ring trains would have to be built off of connecting similar locations out in the suburbs, which are likely too sparse right now, but would be great to grow towards that. We need a series of sub-downtowns sprinkled around the metro!
I've always been curious about the buses -> grow ridership -> train/LRT/etc model and how well that works. To me, there is just something psychologically different about the two. I occasionally take a bus into work, and even though the total time is about the same, I'm always happy when I can get back on my usual train. Similarly, if I'm visiting an unfamiliar city I don't really even consider using buses, but I'll jump on a lightrail, train, or subway in a heartbeat. Somehow it feels less like I'm going to get off in the wrong place and not know a way back. But I digress....
I don't agree that density is that important in the Twin Cities Metro area. It is just a "different" set up then most other cities because of St. Paul and Minneapolis being so close and that most people in the metro do not live and work downtown, period. Put small stops at the junctions of major roads, just like the bus system has--like the Eagan or Burnsville transit stations and like the current rail has. People from outlying areas drive or take the bus to these and take the bus on to other destinations. You aren't going to be able to connect every city by rail line so having a bus system that supports the rail would work. Like I said earlier, put the rail where most of the traffic congestion is and it will get used. A loop around 494/696 with spokes running off on 94 (east to Hudson), through both St. Paul and Minneapolis and north to Maple Grove....and beyond maybe. Then lines running up 35W from Lakeville through Minneapolis/St. Paul through to White Bear Lake or even farther north. You could also run a line up 169 and over on 393. Then run a line up Cedar to the MOA. With the current lines in place/almost in place this would connect all of the metro area with bus lines between the spokes to get people to the lines. This system would end up looking very much like the DC system that circles DC with spokes off to the suburbs and into the heart of DC. The system would look very much like a spider web with the anchors being the rail lines and the threads between being bus routes.
Even the DC system has stops every 5-7 miles or so. The same could be done here with major hubs at the intersections of the various lines like 494/35 exchange, the 696/94 exchange in Woodbury/Oakdale, a hub at 169/494, etc. Then have a major hub on Nicollet Ave in Minneapolis and possibly one near the Capital on 94 or so. You don't need a hub at every stop.
A light rail circling the Twin Cities won't work because the slow speed. If we had a light rail loop around the cities the ride from Eagan to White Bear Lake will probably take about an hour. A commuter train would make more sense but it still wont have enough riders. Maybe in 50 years from now we could have a commuter rail way far out connecting the far out suburbs.
A suburban loop would only work in the Chicago area because they have more dense walkable suburbs
I think a suburban line would be great in 30 years or so, when people are really moving back into the cities and the denser suburbs (Roseville, Edina, etc.). Right now, if any suburban lines it should be from Eden Prairie to the airport. But for right now I think the biggest priority Met Council needs to consider is St. Paul to MOA/MSP Airport.
I don't agree that density is that important in the Twin Cities Metro area. It is just a "different" set up then most other cities because of St. Paul and Minneapolis being so close and that most people in the metro do not live and work downtown, period. Put small stops at the junctions of major roads, just like the bus system has--like the Eagan or Burnsville transit stations and like the current rail has. People from outlying areas drive or take the bus to these and take the bus on to other destinations. You aren't going to be able to connect every city by rail line so having a bus system that supports the rail would work. Like I said earlier, put the rail where most of the traffic congestion is and it will get used. A loop around 494/696 with spokes running off on 94 (east to Hudson), through both St. Paul and Minneapolis and north to Maple Grove....and beyond maybe. Then lines running up 35W from Lakeville through Minneapolis/St. Paul through to White Bear Lake or even farther north. You could also run a line up 169 and over on 393. Then run a line up Cedar to the MOA. With the current lines in place/almost in place this would connect all of the metro area with bus lines between the spokes to get people to the lines. This system would end up looking very much like the DC system that circles DC with spokes off to the suburbs and into the heart of DC. The system would look very much like a spider web with the anchors being the rail lines and the threads between being bus routes.
Even the DC system has stops every 5-7 miles or so. The same could be done here with major hubs at the intersections of the various lines like 494/35 exchange, the 696/94 exchange in Woodbury/Oakdale, a hub at 169/494, etc. Then have a major hub on Nicollet Ave in Minneapolis and possibly one near the Capital on 94 or so. You don't need a hub at every stop.
Golfgal, I think you lack understanding of the scale of DC's Metro. The 'loop' you talked about doesn't even come close to circling DC. The biggest example of which would be the 'loop' that connects The Mall with the Pentagon and Arlington over the Potomac...That area, geographically, is about as large as circling from DT MPLS to lake street via hiawatha, and to the chain of lakes via Lake St, and back up to Target Field again...I would hardly call that a loop that goes around the city, and not NEARLY the scale that would encircle 494/694. That 'loop' in DC that the lines spoke from (it's not a loop, but a few lines that simply connect different destinations in close-ish proximity) is simply made of separate lines that are running to different locales throughout CENTRAL DC.
Anyway, it is undeniable that DT MPLS and STP are undisputably the 2 major commercial hubs, by far, in the metro area. Also, they are centrally located to the rest of the metro. Whether you like it or not, The downtowns (especially MPLS) are the SINGLE most important economic engines in the metro, and arguably the state. They are dense, walkable, central, vibrant, and easy to get around WITHOUT a car.
One more thing I'd like to point out...Public transportation systems not only try to address current needs and commuting patterns. They have an ability to encourage changing commuting and living patterns by establishing permanent convenient corridors that encourage smart growth. This, in my opinion, is what needs to be done in the Twin Cities. We need to CHANGE...that cannot happen by rewarding the current, wasteful patterns of typical energy-hungry suburban living arrangements (being hopelessly dependant on automobiles, sprawling for miles, low density patterns that require much more infrastructure to support tiny populations, etc). I've lived in the 'burbs (Hopkins, Prior Lake, Burnsville, Minnetonka, Maple Grove) and now Minneapolis (going on 5 years)...I know how suburbanites and urbanites both live. I simply found suburban life to be extremely...wasteful of resources, time and money. It needs to stop. Simple as that...and things ARE changing, thank goodness.
Last edited by Minneapolitan; 12-20-2011 at 01:39 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. No, you aren't living on top of your neighbors like you do in Minneapolis but people would create an artificial density by driving to transit stations, just like they do now with the bus transit stations.
